Latest Cases

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claim for unfair dismissal. It accepted the employee's evidence that the reason for his dismissal was that the employer had wanted him to continue in the same role that he was already fulfilling, but with a pay reduction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held that the tribunal's conclusion was one it had been entitled to reach and there had been no misdirection or perversity. 

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the employment tribunal had erred in its decision that the employee had been constructively dismissed without first asking itself the correct question, namely, whether the employee had acted in such a way as to breach the implied term of the contract between employer and employee. Further the decision made by the tribunal was perverse as there had been internally contradictory findings. Accordingly, the employer's appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the employment tribunal had based its finding of unfair dismissal on a plain misunderstanding of the employer's grievance policy. Further, the employee had not wanted such a hearing and the employer had the discretion to proceed straight to a disciplinary investigation under the policy. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and a finding of a fair dismissal was substituted. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant, B, had arranged a loan with the defendant bank. He subsequently sought to transfer the loan from himself to a company that he controlled. B and the company brought proceedings against the bank for, among other things, misrepresentation. In the course of proceedings, the bank sought to strike out the claim, and the claimants sought permission to amend the particulars of claim. The Queen's Bench Division held that the application to amend would be dismissed, and judgment would be given for the bank. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) upheld the employee's claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination, deciding that the loss of the employee's post and her dismissal in consequence was not by reason of redundancy, but a dismissal for some other substantial reason (SOSR). The tribunal decided that the employee had been discriminated against on the grounds of her age by the appointment of a younger person to one of the new posts in the restructured organisation, and held that she had been unfairly dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal reversed the tribunal's decision, taking the view that although the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the dismissal had been for SOSR, it had been wrong to conclude on the evidence that it had been age discrimination. The assessment of the fairness of the dismissal had been flawed, but that issue would be remitted to a tribunal for determination. 

Employment tribunal – Striking out. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's application to vary an unless order and refused to give her relief from sanctions with the result that her case was struck out following her non-compliance with the order. The tribunal further refused her permission to raise new unlawful direct race discrimination claims. In dismissing her appeal against those decisions, the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that there had been no error of law in the tribunal's order or its approach. 

Town and country planning – Local government. The claimant unsuccessfully applied to the local planning authority for retrospective planning permission to use a site for metal recycling and car breaking. The claimant appealed to an inspector and that appeal was dismissed. By a claim under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the claimant challenged the inspector's decision. The Administrative Court dismissed the claim finding that it had been open to the inspector to reason and decide as he had done. 

Patent – Infringement. The first claimant owned two United Kingdom patents for an invention entitled 'flying shark' and the second claimant was the exclusive licensee of the first claimant in respect of both patents. The defendant devised and imported toys for sale in the UK, in particular, flying fish known as 'mega fliers'. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendant alleging patent infringement. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that both patents had been infringed and ruled on the validity of the claims within each patent. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employees' appeal against the decision of the employment tribunal not to extend time for the bringing of their claims for age discrimination, ruled that there had been no error of law and that the tribunal had been entitled in all the circumstances to refuse the application for extension of time. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. In an application seeking to set aside an order giving the claimant permission to serve out of the jurisdiction, the Chancery Division found, inter alia, that the claimant had not established that, in the absence of an English law contract, a claim under the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, SI 1993/3053, could be brought within certain of the gateways under CPR Pt 6.